Cannabis

[Atilla]

Take the swine who want to profit off of a plant and publicly hang 'em.

Yeah! Goddamn farmers! Who do they think they are, selling corn like that?

[otters~1]

I'm for the legalization of both cannabis and salvia divinorum.

Salvia is legal already... right?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I'm for the legalization of both cannabis and salvia divinorum.

Salvia is legal already... right?

Yes, for 18+ folk.
Honestly, I prefer salvia to (what I'd imagine I'd get from) marijuana (because obviously I've never done any). It's more convenient to have a mind-blowing 10-minute high, and then get up and go on with your day without being affected by it.

[SlappyMcGee]

Take the swine who want to profit off of a plant and publicly hang 'em.

Yeah! Goddamn farmers! Who do they think they are, selling corn like that?

Haha, yeah. It's not like selling things that other people don't have is the basis of our economic system.

When you buy corn from a farmer, you're paying for the work and time spent by the farmer to make that corn. And then you pay extra money on top of that to an entity that is not the farmer. He is taxed for his materials, for his land, and for shipping his product. Ultimately, the government, simply for winning a popularity contest, gets to decide where to spend that money.

... which I suppose is off the point of Marijuana. It gets back to my views on the government. I'll just be disappointed to see weed become another industry, no longer run by the people.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I'll just be disappointed to see weed become another industry, no longer run by the people.

What're you, a socialist now?

[Lachesis]

Here's a good plan:
Legal for people 20yrs and older, and use it in a private area.
If you use it in a public area, instead of sending you to jail, fine you.
Apply current DUI laws to marijuana.
Put a set tax percent on it.
Regulate.

This plan can work for many other drugs as well, such as ibogaine, LSA, Psilocybin Mushrooms, and Salvia divinorum.

Also slaps,
It SHOULD be run by the people, but if you look at the buying of drugs that was not "approved" by some safety test, and you don't know what the fuck could be in it, then it seems pretty dumb...

[SlappyMcGee]

Here's a good plan:
Legal for people 20yrs and older, and use it in a private area.
If you use it in a public area, instead of sending you to jail, fine you.
Apply current DUI laws to marijuana.
Put a set tax percent on it.
Regulate.

This plan can work for many other drugs as well, such as ibogaine, LSA, Psilocybin Mushrooms, and Salvia divinorum.

Also slaps,
It SHOULD be run by the people, but if you look at the buying of drugs that was not "approved" by some safety test, and you don't know what the fuck could be in it, then it seems pretty dumb...

Right, because I'm sure all of the people who do weed right now do safety tests on all of their weed that they buy, right? The industry has managed to maintain itself perfectly without government intervention. I want them to look the other way, rather than seeing how they can get themselves involved.

[Atilla]

I'll just be disappointed to see weed become another industry, no longer run by the people.

What're you, a socialist now?

Remember, kids: when you smoke pot, you're inhaling communism.

[scythe]

I'm for the legalization of both cannabis and salvia divinorum.

Salvia is legal already... right?

Yes, for 18+ folk.
Honestly, I prefer salvia to (what I'd imagine I'd get from) marijuana (because obviously I've never done any). It's more convenient to have a mind-blowing 10-minute high, and then get up and go on with your day without being affected by it.

Yeah, I can understand that sentiment.

A few states (but not mine) have made salvia illegal, as has Australia. I'm not sure why, considering it's short duration, but what do you expect?

[otters~1]

I'll just be disappointed to see weed become another industry, no longer run by the people.

What're you, a socialist now?

Remember, kids: when you smoke pot, you're inhaling communism.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAAAA...
Wait.
How did this comment happen?

EDIT: Instant sig entry. :)

[Clovic]

/me passes Slappy the blunt

[Kablizzy]

/me passes Slappy the blunt

PLUS 220 PERCENT WARN. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

[Clovic]

Really?

[Tanner]

PLUS 220 PERCENT WARN. >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

These bans go up to eleven!

[otters~1]

Another instant sig entry!

[SlappyMcGee]

This thread's a better hitmaker than ABBA, or Oscar Wilde! Not even a third as gay, though.

[bluenin]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29642758/
http://www.buffalonews.com/260/story/611967.html

The ball is rolling. Every state in the country is facing massive budget deficits, and the answer many states seem to be looking at harder is to regulate and tax pot. There has been talk in NY, but I haven't really seen anything solid yet.

[Bigblargh]

Dude, I was thinking about this thread, and I was thinkng about how everyone has these ideas, right? Shit. Um. I was think- um. I was thinking about how everyone has their own ideas, and none of them change, y'know, actual physical, like, ideas. No, not idea. Like things. Ideas change things. Well, ideas aren't-- um-- things-- um.
Dude.

oh

I gotta--






What were we talking about?

[scythe]

I'll just be disappointed to see weed become another industry, no longer run by the people.

Who else would it be run by? Robots? Chimpanzees? I mean, robotics are still in development, and the chimpanzees are too busy filibustering.

Dude, I was thinking about this thread, and I was thinkng about how everyone has these ideas, right?

Shit. Um. I was think- um. I was thinking about how everyone has their own ideas, and none of them change, y'know, actual physical, like, ideas. No, not idea. Like things. Ideas change things. Well, ideas aren't-- um-- things-- um.
Dude.

oh

I gotta--






What were we talking about?

I think you're looking for /weed/. You won't find it here.

[jean-luc]

Is anyone trying to track sales figures on cannabis? I mean, I appreciate the difficulties associated with tracking an illegal trade, but I imagine someone must have some rough numbers. How much money could states actually make by taxing cannabis c. or salvia d. or whatnot?

[Clovic]

Well, there isn't going to be enough demand for salvia to tax it and make it sensible, salvia should simply stay legal, but that's another topic. As for how much could actually be made by taxing cannabis, I'd be willing to bet that it could single handedly fix our economy here in the states. There's a reason that a new state approves medical marijuana every few months - because it's a win win solution for fucking everyone. Win for the money it brings in - win for the jail system which would no longer be as overcrowded due to crimes which should not be considered criminal - win for the people who need cannabis (and for those who simply desire it) - and win because it would piss off everyone who doesn't want it to happen.

When you put the value of a mature plant at 3 grand and then figure there's...oh, 10,000 significant grow ops going on at any one time? With each one having at least a few dozen plants. Also, when you factor in that if it were legal, there would be government facilities manufactured for only this purpose. If you've ever seen pictures of the mushroom facilities in the Netherlands, then you'll know how big these things can get. There's an almost infinite amount of money to be made.

[jean-luc]

Is anyone trying to track sales figures on cannabis? I mean, I appreciate the difficulties associated with tracking an illegal trade, but I imagine someone must have some rough numbers. How much money could states actually make by taxing cannabis c. or salvia d. or whatnot?

I actually linked a report earlier in this thread.

Oh, so you did. thanks. Relinked for convenience: http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2 ... t_2006.pdf
So, lets do a simple projection - there's US$35.8 billion in marijuana production in the United States (Gettman 3). Hold on to that number for the time being.
Beer, in California (where it's taxed fairly highly), is taxed at a rate of $0.20 per gallon. Beer is often sold in 12 fl. oz. cans or bottles (354ml). That means it takes about 11 cans/bottles for a gallon. Miller Lite, which is well rated by a Consumer Reports article that I happen to have nearby, sells low at about $9 for a 12-pack. This means about $8.25 per gallon. Recall that it's taxed at $0.20 per gallon, so that's a rate of 2.4%.
Now, let's say that they were to tax marijuana at the same rate that they tax beer. Note that there is no reason this must be the case, but that it is a likely starting point for figuring taxes, as people will likely accept it. That means that total national revenue would be about US$8.7 million. Actual revenue would be less than this, because they would, in all probability, restrict marijuana sales to those over 21. A fairly substantial percentage of sales would remain on the black market, sold to those underage.

I calculate this for the rate at which they tax alcohol because it must be noted that the infrastructure for obtaining marijuana illegally is already in place and functioning. If marijuana is taxed in a manner that makes it significantly more expensive to purchase legally than through existing illegal channels, a bulk of purchasers will continue to obtain it on the black market. Taxing it too highly will fail to bring in substantial revenue and will also fail to bring about the other advantages of legalizing marijuana, namely regulation of an industry that is currently often involved in both organized crime and human rights abuses. Marijuana is often reported as trading at about US$20 per gram in California (Note that this is abnormally high - a national average appears to be $5.91 (Gettman 9)). The 2.4% tax rate would bump that up to $20.04, which is largely insignificant.

Lets look at an individual state case study to figure out how we could actually make some money off of this:
California produces an estimated US$13.8 million in marijuana (Gettman 11). The revenue there, assuming California's own beer tax rate be applied to marijuana, would be just US$334k, which is insubstantial - it's certainly not going to end any economic crises.

For the sake of making Clovic look like a fool, let's say that California wanted to end it's economic crisis with Marijuana. California alone, ignoring it's portion of federal matters, is at least $80 billion in debt. If California wanted to just pay off it's debt - much less carry out necessary infrastructure repairs, job stimulus, etc... that will cost orders of magnitude more than their current debt to complete - they would need to tax marijuana at a rate of 579700%, meaning a gram of marijuana in California would cost $115900. No one would ever buy legally.

While there will be an increase in purchasing if Marijuana is made legal, I do not see it being more than a 3 or 4-fold increase in the present term (say the next 3-4 years). The revenue from taxation, even assuming a ridiculous 100% taxation, would not be significant. While I do support the legalization of marijuana, revenue is not a reason.

[Clovic]

How does anything you said make me look like a fool? First of all, the marijuana tax would be independent of other taxes. Even if present taxes were going to affect it, the tax would be closer to that of tobacco, not beer. Your numbers are ridiculous as they don't even have anything to do with intake. It wouldn't need to be taxed that much because there would be enough to go around, being legal means there won't be shortages, which means the price will go down if anything. I see your case studies and I raise you supply and demand.

Also, the taxation of items is not the only thing that is going to help the economy. You are only looking at the revenue the state would make from taxes, you aren't looking at the economic stimulation that 14 billion dollars of spending has on one state. You put that much extra money into the market that wasn't there before without taking any money out and that's enough to start improving the jails and housing situations (Sticking with California, those are their two biggest problems at the moment.)

You address an important point when you say if it is taxed too highly then it will still be obtained underground, and you are correct...to a point. First off, being legal, it would be much much much cheaper than it is now as the cost is inflated due to it being underground and dangerous to deal from a judicial perspective. Even if taxed to extreme amounts, it will still be cheaper then it is now. Also, the quality will be much higher on average since it will be regulated and legally produced.

[Atilla]

How does anything you said make me look like a fool? First of all, the marijuana tax would be independent of other taxes. Even if present taxes were going to affect it, the tax would be closer to that of tobacco, not beer. Your numbers are ridiculous as they don't even have anything to do with intake. It wouldn't need to be taxed that much because there would be enough to go around, being legal means there won't be shortages, which means the price will go down if anything. I see your case studies and I raise you supply and demand.

...what? The price going down will not increase tax revenue, though increased sales might. However, even if sales increase drastically, marijuana production isn't a huge portion of the GNP and no matter how much tax you slap on it, you're not going to magically fix the economy overnight.

Also, the taxation of items is not the only thing that is going to help the economy. You are only looking at the revenue the state would make from taxes, you aren't looking at the economic stimulation that 14 billion dollars of spending has on one state. You put that much extra money into the market that wasn't there before without taking any money out and that's enough to start improving the jails and housing situations (Sticking with California, those are their two biggest problems at the moment.)

That money already exists in the market; it's just being traded through the black market rather than legal avenues, thus stimulating the economy through the dealers' spending on bling, handguns, and skanky hos, or whatever it is they spend their ill-gotten gains on.

[jean-luc]

Largely, I'll agree with Atilla here.

How does anything you said make me look like a fool? First of all, the marijuana tax would be independent of other taxes. Even if present taxes were going to affect it, the tax would be closer to that of tobacco, not beer. Your numbers are ridiculous as they don't even have anything to do with intake. It wouldn't need to be taxed that much because there would be enough to go around, being legal means there won't be shortages, which means the price will go down if anything. I see your case studies and I raise you supply and demand.

As Atilla noted, the rpice going down would result in lower tax revenues. If you think that increased demand (as a result of increased supply) would cause an increase in revenue, then note what I said at the end of my post - I cannot foresee the increase in usage following legislation being more than 3 or 4-fold within the next few years. This will still not make the revenue significant.

Also, the taxation of items is not the only thing that is going to help the economy. You are only looking at the revenue the state would make from taxes, you aren't looking at the economic stimulation that 14 billion dollars of spending has on one state. You put that much extra money into the market that wasn't there before without taking any money out and that's enough to start improving the jails and housing situations (Sticking with California, those are their two biggest problems at the moment.)

As Atilla noted, all that money is already in the economy. Yes, there would be an increase in demand which would lead to more marijuana being purchased, but, of course, the reduced prices you noted could nearly negate this effect. And assuming more people buy Marijuana and use more money to do it - you're not really putting any more money in to the economy. The kind of money that people would spend on pot is same kind of money that people are already spending. It's not going to dislodge any money from savings (particularly when you consider Marijuana's low addiction risk), and it's certainly not going to make any more money appear.

You address an important point when you say if it is taxed too highly then it will still be obtained underground, and you are correct...to a point. First off, being legal, it would be much much much cheaper than it is now as the cost is inflated due to it being underground and dangerous to deal from a judicial perspective. Even if taxed to extreme amounts, it will still be cheaper then it is now. Also, the quality will be much higher on average since it will be regulated and legally produced.

Realize that the current marijuana economy is already highly efficient. The reductions in price due to it's newfound legality would likely not be as significant as you think they'd be, and certainly not significant enough to allow for a jump in taxation that would provide for substantial revenue. And realize that the reduction in price due to higher availability would also effect the black market - dealers could obtain marijuana illegally at a much closer step in the legal supply chain, and thus it'd be easier for them to obtain.